Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."
Comments
66,421 - 66,440 of 171,504 Comments Last updated 4 hrs ago

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68183
Aug 16, 2011
 
MichiganGEL wrote:
<quoted text>
??????
Since it is the size of the pupil that determines the amount of light entering the eyeball, I don't see what difference the color of the iris would make.
Citation?
See also: white iPhone

Since: Aug 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68184
Aug 16, 2011
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely.
OK - you're on.

First of all, logic. The mtDNA indicates that all women are descended from one woman. That fact alone supports the creation and goes completely against evolutionary theory.

Second, the actual mutation rates measured is consistent with the Biblical account. Molecular clock dates based on evolutionary assumptions is necessary to "fix" the date backward to the required/desired timeframe.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Clearwater, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68185
Aug 16, 2011
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
OK - you're on.
First of all, logic. The mtDNA indicates that all women are descended from one woman. That fact alone supports the creation and goes completely against evolutionary theory.
Related. She was not the only female alive at the time. And nothing supports creation.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Second, the actual mutation rates measured is consistent with the Biblical account. Molecular clock dates based on evolutionary assumptions is necessary to "fix" the date backward to the required/desired timeframe.
So the science is sound except that the science isn't sound. Science is right when it backtracks the DNA but wrong when it calculates the estimated time-frame.

I can't begin to tell you how totally freakin stupid your argument is. You should go back to counting comets.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68186
Aug 16, 2011
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
OK - you're on.
First of all, logic. The mtDNA indicates that all women are descended from one woman. That fact alone supports the creation and goes completely against evolutionary theory.
Second, the actual mutation rates measured is consistent with the Biblical account. Molecular clock dates based on evolutionary assumptions is necessary to "fix" the date backward to the required/desired timeframe.
Claptrap. Mitochondrial Eve had a great, great, great, grandmother. We just haven't sorted out the DNA sequence yet to uncover when and where she lived.

Why are you obliged to bury your god in claptrap? Certainly can't be the kind of god anyone would want to worship.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Clearwater, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68187
Aug 16, 2011
 
From Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Ev...

"One of the misconceptions of mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her that she was the only woman alive at the time.[10][11] Nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. There were many other women around at Eve's time with descendants alive today, but sometime in the past, those lines of descent included at least one male, who do not pass on their mother's mitochondrial DNA, thereby breaking the line of descent. By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes precisely one purely matrilineal line.[10]"

DUH!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Clearwater, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68188
Aug 16, 2011
 
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
Why are you obliged to bury your god in claptrap? Certainly can't be the kind of god anyone would want to worship.
Indeed.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68189
Aug 16, 2011
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
OK - you're on.
First of all, logic. The mtDNA indicates that all women are descended from one woman. That fact alone supports the creation and goes completely against evolutionary theory.
Logic....hehee....good one.

Oh. Wait. You were serious.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Second, the actual mutation rates measured is consistent with the Biblical account. Molecular clock dates based on evolutionary assumptions is necessary to "fix" the date backward to the required/desired timeframe.
You're wrong. There is nothing connected with science that is "consistent with the Biblical account".

Your initial sentance was an assumption based upon the accuracy of the Bible, which has ZERO evidence for your contention.

On the other hand, Science has ALL the evidence and it is quite conclusive:

'Mitochondrial Eve': Mother of All Humans Lived 200,000 Years Ago

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/...

Age of "Mitochondrial Eve" Confirmed: 200,000 Years Old

Rice University researchers have conducted what they describe as the most "robust" statistical comparison of 10 human genetic models to confirm the age of the maternal ancestor of all living humans.

"Mitochondrial Eve," as she is called, lived about 200,000 years ago - probably somewhere in Africa...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-200138...

The Eve study examined mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed only by mothers to their offspring. The researchers, Rebecca Cann, Mark Stoneking, and the late Allan Wilson, estimated that the ancestor of all surviving mt DNA types lived between 140,000 and 290,000 years ago.

http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna...

Using careful measurements of genetic diversity, scientists estimate that this woman, called the Mitochondrial Eve, lived between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago.4

http://biologos.org/questions/the-mitochondri...

("BioLogos explores, promotes, and celebrates the integration of science and Christian faith.")

There are more, but you get the idea.

Wait....you probably dont. But the lurkers and passers-by do.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68190
Aug 16, 2011
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
OK - you're on.
First of all, logic. The mtDNA indicates that all women are descended from one woman. That fact alone supports the creation and goes completely against evolutionary theory.
Second, the actual mutation rates measured is consistent with the Biblical account. Molecular clock dates based on evolutionary assumptions is necessary to "fix" the date backward to the required/desired timeframe.
I could use a good laugh.

WHERE did you get your "data".
Link, please?

Since: Aug 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68191
Aug 16, 2011
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Logic....hehee....good one.
Oh. Wait. You were serious.
<quoted text>
You're wrong. There is nothing connected with science that is "consistent with the Biblical account".
Your initial sentance was an assumption based upon the accuracy of the Bible, which has ZERO evidence for your contention.
On the other hand, Science has ALL the evidence and it is quite conclusive:
'Mitochondrial Eve': Mother of All Humans Lived 200,000 Years Ago
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/...
Age of "Mitochondrial Eve" Confirmed: 200,000 Years Old
Rice University researchers have conducted what they describe as the most "robust" statistical comparison of 10 human genetic models to confirm the age of the maternal ancestor of all living humans.
"Mitochondrial Eve," as she is called, lived about 200,000 years ago - probably somewhere in Africa...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-200138...
The Eve study examined mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed only by mothers to their offspring. The researchers, Rebecca Cann, Mark Stoneking, and the late Allan Wilson, estimated that the ancestor of all surviving mt DNA types lived between 140,000 and 290,000 years ago.
http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna...
Using careful measurements of genetic diversity, scientists estimate that this woman, called the Mitochondrial Eve, lived between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago.4
http://biologos.org/questions/the-mitochondri...
("BioLogos explores, promotes, and celebrates the integration of science and Christian faith.")
There are more, but you get the idea.
Wait....you probably dont. But the lurkers and passers-by do.
Yeah I know, I know,..your logic is relative. I get that. So let me ask you this: Did you calculate your Mitochondrial Eve age using properly measured mutation rates? Or did you some other method involving estimates and other assumptions about evolutionary theory?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68192
Aug 16, 2011
 
MichiganGEL wrote:
Since it is the size of the pupil that determines the amount of light entering the eyeball, I don't see what difference the color of the iris would make.
The size of the pupil is a *primary* factor in determining the amount of light entering the eyeball, but it is not the *only* factor. Eye color also affects the amount of light entering the eye because different colors reflect different amounts of light. Because the iris surrounds the pupil, you're going to end up with the color of the iris (the eye color) affecting the amount of light being reflected into the pupil.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68193
Aug 16, 2011
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah I know, I know,..your logic is relative. I get that. So let me ask you this: Did you calculate your Mitochondrial Eve age using properly measured mutation rates? Or did you some other method involving estimates and other assumptions about evolutionary theory?
I allow the scientists with expertise in such matters to lay their professional reputations on the line to provide such information.

Now you're going to say, "but they have a vested interest in saying Eve is 200,000 years old".

But actually, they do not. Because their work is available for any other scientist to re-create. If subsequent researchers use the same data and come up with different dates, then 2 things happen:

1. The original scientists get humiliated in front of their peers, likely lose research grants, prestige, and quite possibly see the end of their professional career.

2. The researchers who arrived first at the CORRECT data, gain everything that the previous (incorrect) scientists lost, and are instantly the most popular kids on the block!

Science is very cut-throat. If you dont have the mettle, you get cut down rather quickly.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68194
Aug 16, 2011
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
The mtDNA indicates that all women are descended from one woman.
That's an inaccurate statement. First, both men and women have mtDNA. It indicates that *all* of us, both men and women, are descended from one woman *strictly via the female line*. It does not mean that we aren't also descended from *other* women who were alive at the same time, but the descent goes through at least one male at some point.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68195
Aug 16, 2011
 
MichiganGEL wrote:
<quoted text>
??????
Since it is the size of the pupil that determines the amount of light entering the eyeball, I don't see what difference the color of the iris would make.
Citation?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2...

http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/ligh...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68196
Aug 16, 2011
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
OK - you're on.
First of all, logic. The mtDNA indicates that all women are descended from one woman. That fact alone supports the creation and goes completely against evolutionary theory.
Second, the actual mutation rates measured is consistent with the Biblical account. Molecular clock dates based on evolutionary assumptions is necessary to "fix" the date backward to the required/desired timeframe.

OMG, you are so full of not knowing what you are talking about that you could turn a perfect vacuum green with envy.

First, that there would be a universal common ancestor to any EXISTING species, especially ones that have been through bottlenecks like homo sapiens has been through is hardly surprising. You don't have to go back that many generations to find common ancestor to particular race, for example. All Polynesians have a common ancestor much more recently than mtEVE.
Reference: science.

Second, the actual mutation rate present is thousands of times too low to allow for the human species to have a single common ancestor that recently. There simply are too many Alleles in human DNA for this to be anywhere near possible.
Reference: science.

Molecular clock rates are based on observational evidence, not assumptions from the ToE. Again you seem to feel free to say anything you want without any actual knowledge of what you are talking about.

I am preparing a more complete and utterly shameless reply in French, of which I know virtually none of but at least know more of it than you do of evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68197
Aug 16, 2011
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Related. She was not the only female alive at the time. And nothing supports creation.
<quoted text>
So the science is sound except that the science isn't sound. Science is right when it backtracks the DNA but wrong when it calculates the estimated time-frame.
I can't begin to tell you how totally freakin stupid your argument is. You should go back to counting comets.

Even posting under a pseudonym I would be too embarrassed to post utter nonsense as if it were fact. Where do creotards get balls that big and brains that small?

Since: Aug 07

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68198
Aug 16, 2011
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I allow the scientists with expertise in such matters to lay their professional reputations on the line to provide such information.
Now you're going to say, "but they have a vested interest in saying Eve is 200,000 years old".
But actually, they do not. Because their work is available for any other scientist to re-create. If subsequent researchers use the same data and come up with different dates, then 2 things happen:
1. The original scientists get humiliated in front of their peers, likely lose research grants, prestige, and quite possibly see the end of their professional career.
2. The researchers who arrived first at the CORRECT data, gain everything that the previous (incorrect) scientists lost, and are instantly the most popular kids on the block!
Science is very cut-throat. If you dont have the mettle, you get cut down rather quickly.
So you're just going to swallow the pablum without knowing how they arrived at it? Do you understand that "just so" assumptions to make it fit right are not sound science? Wouldn't you prefer actual observations that have been objectively measured to biased assumptions based on unrelated data? We can't have this discussion if you are not even willing to learn the basics. Evolutionist peers have no value in their own review process - their conclusions MUST support evolutionary theory or it is rejected before it is even considered. This is ideology - not science.

The correct method is measure the observed mtDNA mutation rates and apply that to arrive at a 6,000 year old Mitochondrial Eve which, by no coincident agrees with the Bible.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68199
Aug 16, 2011
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah I know, I know,..your logic is relative. I get that. So let me ask you this: Did you calculate your Mitochondrial Eve age using properly measured mutation rates? Or did you some other method involving estimates and other assumptions about evolutionary theory?

Assumptions about evolution? You mean fossils, DNA, molecular clock calculations.....? Oh, no, can't be any of those because NON ofossils, DNA, molecular clock calculations.....?

Let me say that again.

It can't be any of those because NONE of them are based on any ASSUMPTIONS about evolution.

I don't know how I can dumb it down to your level so you will just have to hire a kindergarten teacher to explain it to you.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68200
Aug 16, 2011
 
I would recommend that UC check out the last link I provided above ( http://biologos.org/questions/the-mitochondri... ), as it is co-authored by Francis Collins, who in addition to being the head of the Human Genome Project (he knows what he's talking about), is also a Christian.

The other author is Darrel Falk who is also a Biologist and Christian.

I would be willing to bet that they know more about both Biology AND Christianity than UC.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68201
Aug 16, 2011
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're just going to swallow the pablum without knowing how they arrived at it? Do you understand that "just so" assumptions to make it fit right are not sound science? Wouldn't you prefer actual observations that have been objectively measured to biased assumptions based on unrelated data? We can't have this discussion if you are not even willing to learn the basics. Evolutionist peers have no value in their own review process - their conclusions MUST support evolutionary theory or it is rejected before it is even considered. This is ideology - not science.
The correct method is measure the observed mtDNA mutation rates and apply that to arrive at a 6,000 year old Mitochondrial Eve which, by no coincident agrees with the Bible.
See above post re: Francis Collins and Darrel Falk.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68202
Aug 16, 2011
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I allow the scientists with expertise in such matters to lay their professional reputations on the line to provide such information.
Now you're going to say, "but they have a vested interest in saying Eve is 200,000 years old".
But actually, they do not. Because their work is available for any other scientist to re-create. If subsequent researchers use the same data and come up with different dates, then 2 things happen:
1. The original scientists get humiliated in front of their peers, likely lose research grants, prestige, and quite possibly see the end of their professional career.
2. The researchers who arrived first at the CORRECT data, gain everything that the previous (incorrect) scientists lost, and are instantly the most popular kids on the block!
Science is very cut-throat. If you dont have the mettle, you get cut down rather quickly.

Such facts are lost on fundy creationists because of their vested interest in attacking anything that seems remotely related to evolution.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

28 Users are viewing the Science / Technology Forum right now

Search the Science / Technology Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
how to create websites / photo video creation a... 4 hr dadman 2
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 5 hr SpaceBlues 26,948
How can I recover deleted photos & videos from ... (Jul '12) 15 hr SwedolkJuonh 11
[vCard Contacts to iPhone] Import vCard (.vcf) ... (Mar '13) 15 hr Davidoa1 3
Copy SMS Text Messages From iPhone 4S/4 to Mac ... (May '13) 15 hr Davidoa1 7
Telephone scams.. and why they don't get caught.. 17 hr Brisky 1
How to Recover Deleted Voice Memos from iPhone... (Sep '12) 17 hr helen 13
•••
•••